What Now?

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

If the PAC 4 manages to survive and add several current non-P5 schools to the PAC, do we know if P5 status can be taken away from the PAC? I assume this has never been considered before, but if the PAC brings in a bunch of teams like Rice, Wichita State, etc....could the NCAA pull the P5 status away from the PAC in the next year or so after Oregon and Washington also bail?

[Charleston Pony]

If the PAC 4 manages to survive and add several current non-P5 schools to the PAC, do we know if P5 status can be taken away from the PAC? I assume this has never been considered before, but if the PAC brings in a bunch of teams like Rice, Wichita State, etc....could the NCAA pull the P5 status away from the PAC in the next year or so after Oregon and Washington also bail?

Remember the Big East was once a "power conference" so yes, a conference can lose it's place at the big boys table with changes in it's makeup

[Dukie]

If the PAC 4 manages to survive and add several current non-P5 schools to the PAC, do we know if P5 status can be taken away from the PAC? I assume this has never been considered before, but if the PAC brings in a bunch of teams like Rice, Wichita State, etc....could the NCAA pull the P5 status away from the PAC in the next year or so after Oregon and Washington also bail?

Remember the Big East was once a "power conference" so yes, a conference can lose it's place at the big boys table with changes in it's makeup

Not exactly untrue, but this was way more of an issue when the BCS was a closed system of the power conferences only, and what are now the Group of 5 conferences fought for a NY6 place that was not part of the "championship."

Now, with the top 6 (I think?) conference champions guaranteed into the new expanded playoff, having or losing P5 status (if P5 is even relevant anymore--it's P2 and then sorta p2 and then whatever comes out of the former PAC and then G5) is really just about how much or little TV revenue you get. And I suppose whether the conferences that have started to set rules about avoiding G5 teams in nonconference football start applying those to whatever the PAC 4 become. (Hard to imagine anyone saying that playing Stanford is verboten but playing Vanderbilt is OK, but weirder things have happened.)

[Topper]

If the Big 12 is P5 because UT and OU used to be members does that make the PAC P5 because USC, UCLA, Oregon and Washington used to be members? In all honesty, the Big 12 has imported a group of P6 and now 4 former WAC schools that only occassionally made an impact in the PAC. In good faith it would be difficult to call whatever the PAC can cobble together to be of P5 status. Basically we now have two major league conferences, a couple of AAA leagues and several AA leagues. The P5 is sort of an archaic concept at this point.

[rodrod5]

If the PAC 4 manages to survive and add several current non-P5 schools to the PAC, do we know if P5 status can be taken away from the PAC? I assume this has never been considered before, but if the PAC brings in a bunch of teams like Rice, Wichita State, etc....could the NCAA pull the P5 status away from the PAC in the next year or so after Oregon and Washington also bail?

Remember the Big East was once a "power conference" so yes, a conference can lose it's place at the big boys table with changes in it's makeup

1. P5 conferences have 3 things that make them a P5 conference.

A. two votes on NCAA business vs one for G5 members. This is the "autonomy". This is named specifically by conference with no mechanism to take that away and did not come about until after the Big East was done for.

B. They get almost $80 million each for the football playoffs existing. This is based on ownership of the major bowl games that host the playoffs. The Big East never owned a major bowl they had a long standing affiliation with the Orange Bowl, but they had no ownership in it. The ACC took that over as the Big East was dying off. The ACC also does not have ownership in the Orange Bowl. but they had enough of an affiliation to get the money. In the case of the PAC 12 they own half of the Rose Bowl as confirmed by the ASU president just the other day in an interview. The Rose Bowl was the last one to sign off on playoff expansion as well so the Rose Bowl still has power and the Big 10 still owns the other half so that power is staying.

C. P5 conferences have guaranteed NY6 bowl slots. In the case of the Big 12 and SEC it is the Sugar Bowl with a payout of $50 each million two out of every three years when the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff host. Big 10 and PAC 12 the Rose Bowl for the same $50 million two out of every three years. With the ACC it is $25 million to them and $25 million to the best team left between the Big 10 and SEC after the Big 10 and SEC send their playoff teams and Rose and Sugar Bowl teams. For the Big 12 they actually have Cotton Bowl ownership and that was placed into the playoffs, but the bowl agreement was Sugar against the SEC.

As of now there is nothing to indicate that "autonomy" is going to be taken away from the PAC 12. The PAC 12 still owns half of the Rose Bowl and as of now they still get $80 million or more from the football playoffs. G5 conferences split $100 million for the football playoffs existing.

One can try and say that the playoff money will change, but with the Big 10 still a half owner of the Rose Bowl and that payoff based on that ownership and the same for the SEC and Sugar and Big 12 and Cotton I do not think that will chance. There is a chance that ESPN or anyone else will not bid $50 million per conference in the future for the Rose Bowl, the two out of three years when it is not hosting a playoff game, but I am not sure they want to do that to the Big 10. But that really seems like the only issue the PAC 12 faces out of the three "P" criteria the chance to have their NY6 bowl participation payout reduced.

2. The Big East never had that ownership all they had was an affiliation to a bowl they did not own. In addition during that era of the BCS there was a rating system for conferences that was used for an easier path to a playoff spot for winning the conference. The Big East was in jeopardy of losing that to the MWC shortly before they were pulled apart. In the next era with the playoffs that was no longer in place.

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

In the case of the PAC 12 they own half of the Rose Bowl as confirmed by the ASU president just the other day in an interview. As of now there is nothing to indicate that "autonomy" is going to be taken away from the PAC 12. The PAC 12 still owns half of the Rose Bowl and as of now they still get $80 million or more from the football playoffs. the only issue the PAC 12 faces out of the three "P" criteria the chance to have their NY6 bowl participation payout reduced.

Very interesting rodrod5. Thank you for the explanation.

[MDJenkins]

Have university ADs become basically reactive pawns when “searching” for a new conference affiliation? I assume they cannot be proactive since the media companies are the decision makers since they are bringing the deals to the table and have all of the power. Is this correct?

[FroggieFever]

If the PAC 4 manages to survive and add several current non-P5 schools to the PAC, do we know if P5 status can be taken away from the PAC? I assume this has never been considered before, but if the PAC brings in a bunch of teams like Rice, Wichita State, etc....could the NCAA pull the P5 status away from the PAC in the next year or so after Oregon and Washington also bail?

Remember the Big East was once a "power conference" so yes, a conference can lose it's place at the big boys table with changes in it's makeup

1. P5 conferences have 3 things that make them a P5 conference.

A. two votes on NCAA business vs one for G6 members. This is the "autonomy". This is named specifically by conference with no mechanism to take that away and did not come about until after the Big East was done for.

B. They get almost $80 million each for the football playoffs existing. This is based on ownership of the major bowl games that host the playoffs. The Big East never owned a major bowl they had a long standing affiliation with the Orange Bowl, but they had no ownership in it. The ACC took that over as the Big East was dying off. The ACC also does not have ownership in the Orange Bowl. but they had enough of an affiliation to get the money. In the case of the PAC 12 they own half of the Rose Bowl as confirmed by the ASU president just the other day in an interview. The Rose Bowl was the last one to sign off on playoff expansion as well so the Rose Bowl still has power and the Big 10 still owns the other half so that power is staying.

C. P5 conferences have guaranteed NY6 bowl slots. In the case of the Big 12 and SEC it is the Sugar Bowl with a payout of $50 each million two out of every three years when the Sugar Bowl is not a playoff host. Big 10 and PAC 12 the Rose Bowl for the same $50 million two out of every three years. With the ACC it is $25 million to them and $25 million to the best team left between the Big 10 and SEC after the Big 10 and SEC send their playoff teams and Rose and Sugar Bowl teams. For the Big 12 they actually have Cotton Bowl ownership and that was placed into the playoffs, but the bowl agreement was Sugar against the SEC.

As of now there is nothing to indicate that "autonomy" is going to be taken away from the PAC 12. The PAC 12 still owns half of the Rose Bowl and as of now they still get $80 million or more from the football playoffs. G5 conferences split $100 million for the football playoffs existing.

One can try and say that the playoff money will change, but with the Big 10 still a half owner of the Rose Bowl and that payoff based on that ownership and the same for the SEC and Sugar and Big 12 and Cotton I do not think that will chance. There is a chance that ESPN or anyone else will not bid $50 million per conference in the future for the Rose Bowl, the two out of three years when it is not hosting a playoff game, but I am not sure they want to do that to the Big 10. But that really seems like the only issue the PAC 12 faces out of the three "P" criteria the chance to have their NY6 bowl participation payout reduced.

2. The Big East never had that ownership all they had was an affiliation to a bowl they did not own. In addition during that era of the BCS there was a rating system for conferences that was used for an easier path to a playoff spot for winning the conference. The Big East was in jeopardy of losing that to the MWC shortly before they were pulled apart. In the next era with the playoffs that was no longer in place.

Incredibly well articulated.

FYI (bc I do not know where else to put this): I see it more and more likely that, given the break up, and if SMU remains in the AAC and should SMU run the conference table in 2024/2025 ... auto in the Playoffs. It might be wise to consider this whn flirting with adding members/switching conferences.

[Water Pony]

Newest rumor:

Combine PAC-4 (+) with AAC

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/ ... dcf8&ei=18

This seems highly unlikely but shouldn't be rejected outright, if you could enlarge the western footprint to help the PAC-4 with SDSU, CSU, Gonzaga, etc.

[mtrout]

Do it. And tell George to kick rocks.

https://twitter.com/JustinESports/statu ... 26976?s=20

[Insane_Pony_Posse]

Not that it really matters, but if the AAC and PAC 4 merge, the name of the conference would have to stay PAC? because PAC co-owns Rose Bowl and PAC is P5?

[EastStang]

You know who has been remarkably quiet are the Washington and Oregon legislators and Governor in this fiasco. When the ACC went for Miami and Pitt, the Governor of Virginia told the Virginia Board of Visitors to vote against admission unless Virginia Tech was admitted to the ACC, a bold move. Maybe the shock hasn't worn off yet. But if I were the Governor or Attorney General or Speaker of the House in those states, I'd be looking like I'm doing something.

[1983 Cotton Bowl]

I can't speak to Washington, but I have a good friend who works with the Oregon legislature on higher education matters. He told me some time ago that the legislature doesn't have nearly as much control or influence over UO as it used to because the amount of state funding the UO receives now has decreased to a very small amount. A couple of years ago, it came to light that the UO's incoming class had more than 50% out-of state-students. The legislature raised a stink and UO basically told them they could go pound sand. Ultimately the legislature was powerless to do anything about it. I imagine its the same here.

[Smumba2009]

I'm asking not stating... now that there is literally 4 power conferences is there a chance the American grabs the PAC 4 and becomes the 5th P5?

This has as much of a chance of happening as the AAC grabbing Big 12 schools.

Here is what SMU needs to do.

1. Raise cash ASAP to be ready to buy out of anything and everything ASAP.

2. Win. Especially in football.

3. Start filling the stands and selling tickets.

4. Get the stadium project going ASAP.

5. Get over the idea that anything is going to happen in the next year or two with the ACC. It took Big Bad Texas and OU several years and a hundred million plus to get out of a single year of the GOR for the Big 12. It was reported and confirmed by Texas and OU that they were fully prepared to play the last year in the Big 12 and that negotiations had stalled. With everything going on the Big 12 decided at the last minute that it was easier to allow the buy out of a single year and move on with 12 instead of 14. It is extremely unlikely that the ACC is going to allow a similar affordable exit from their conference with the large number of years left on the GOR.

6. Talk with Rice and Tulane frequently. No matter what academics are still going to matter to Stanford and Cal even if it to the detriment of on the field and court performance.

7. Understand the concept that movement indicates a desire to elevate and the AAC is stagnant already and something to be moved away from.

Funny, I post this question and Billy Embody releases a podcast a few days later detailing why this precise idea has a high probability of occurring.

[Charleston Pony]

Not sure what the source was but played golf today with a B1G buddy from Michigan and he tells me power brokers say the conference and their media partners are considering the concept of the Big 10 and the Little 10, kind of along the lines of Futball's Premier League where the "brand names" and most successful/winning teams would earn the most favorable time slots and the lower level teams games would be broadcast on the secondary networks or streamed. The "chatter" was doing this for football only allowing the more traditional conference alignments to remain in tact for more regional competition in other sports and reducing travel impact. A lot of discussion about the "mental health" of student athletes, acknowledging most of which are students before they are athletes. Interesting if true.

P.S. Part of this discussion apparently involves coaxing Notre Dame and NBC into the B1G conglomerate